Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 13

In an effort to move this forward, I've gone backward

I think we bit off more than we could chew when we tried to make some needed adjustments to the current approved version of Homeopathy by making too many changes at once. Ideally, I think the process should take it one step at a time. I've looked at the history of changes and have reverted to the first group of changes that were made mostly to the science sections by our science editors. This was the version number 100486956 dated 12:27, 12 May, 2009I then replace the intro with the intro from tha already approved article, because that seemed to be something that was agreeable to we three editors that approved the article initially. I then added a slightly stronger statement about why science finds it hard to support. Hopefully, that would lead to a more likely chance of getting the incremental changes that would be improvements rather than total rewrites. I thought this might be a rational place to start.

From here, I will take another look and see if I feel it is something that I can nominate for approval. D. Matt Innis 02:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Matt, but that introduction is far too weak. There isn't any mention of disagreement by physicians until the third paragraph, and the issues about the danger of such things as homeopathic treatment of asthma remain buried. It's exactly that burial that brought the most outside criticism, which I think was justified. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No reason to be sorry, a perfectly good point. All I am saying is that I might be able to endorse this version. You can make whatever changes you want and I might like them, too, but I can't speak for others. This is just my starting place, because the older version was in a state of stalemate that has left us with that version that you don't like so much. Besides, the new introduction wasn't anything I could endorse, not because of content, but because it was a mesh of wishywashy baloney. Sorry, but you have to agree it's true.D. Matt Innis 03:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added back some detail on the proving of bamboo. While provings sometimes include placebos, it is unclear what use is made of this, as there seems to be no practice involving any rigorous comparison of placebo effects vs remedy effects. In this case, which I chose because it had been cited as an example of a well conducted proving, the placebo had effects that were explained away. I think it shows that provings, whatever their merits, do not conform to the conventional scientific method. As you will know, my preferred style is to state the facts and let them speak for themselves without editorial comment, so I don't feel it necessary to point out the divergence from scientific practice, but do feel it's appropriate to describe accurately what seems to be regarded as acceptable practice in homeopathy.Gareth Leng

Thanks Gareth, looks accurate to me. D. Matt Innis 02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for Re-approval

Okay, I've nominated this version for re-approval as a baby step that addresses some of the issues that Paul, Daniel and Howard had with the current article. I believe it to still be essentially accurate and neutral, but will consider arguments to the contrary. D. Matt Innis 19:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In some correspondence with certain other Citizens I was given to believe that the article cannot be changed without the approval of Dana Ullman. Is this still the case? Raymond Arritt 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it never was, it just needs three editors from any of the workgroups on the metadata template. D. Matt Innis 21:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made some changes and would like editors to review these changes for the newest version. Dana Ullman 02:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a serious problem with the sentence about the risks of not obtaining treatment being removed from the first paragraph. Yes, it is mentioned elsewhere, but it is so strong a position of the "other side" that I consider it unbalanced, especially in outside eyes, not to have it in the lede. It isn't saying homeopathy is flatly wrong, but that there is serious question of it -- a fact. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything in the first paragraph should be highly notable. There is not much evidence that there is greater risk in seeking homeopathic treatment and therefore foregoing conventional treatment, especially in the light of the much (much) greater risks associated with conventional treatment. Dana Ullman 03:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Title?

Dana added: Professor Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who co-discovered HIV and who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 conducted a series of experiments . I believe this can be shortened to: Montagnier conducted a series of experiments.

I write regularly about work by great scientists. If I would write in that style, I would write, for example:

Professor Albert Einstein, the Swiss physicist famous for his two theories of relativity and 1921 Nobelist, wrote in 1926 to the German professor Max Born, who was one of the co-founders of quantum mechanics and who won the Nobel Prize in 1954, that the "Old One does not throw dice", because he (Einstein) wanted to explain to Born his difference of opinion with professor Niels Bohr, the Danish discoverer of the quantum theory of atoms and founder of the famous Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics for which he obtained the 1922 Nobel Prize.

Instead of simply:

Einstein wrote in 1926 to Born that the "Old One does not throw dice", because he wanted to explain to Born his difference of opinion with Bohr.

--Paul Wormer 11:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Montagnier's findings are interesting, and at present unexplained. I don't think however that it's right to include them at this stage in an encyclopedia article. Essentially, there needs to be time for the results to be considered, replicated and sources of error to be identified and tested - the requirement that we normally cite reviews (secondary sources) rather than primary articles is just an important cautionary check to ensure that apparently important but flawed results are not incorporated prematurely into the body of accepted knowledge. I suggest that this section be moved into the Bibliography page so that it isn't lost, but not appear in the main article itself.Gareth Leng 12:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully with Gareth. (I also will try to find and read Montagnier's article, because I don't know what a "distinct electromagnetic signature" is supposed to mean). --Paul Wormer 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul...you made me laugh (thanx). However, it seems that you are exaggerating a bit here. A short bio of Montagnier is appropriate here, though it would be a problem if there were short bios of many players in this paragraph (and there isn't). Montagnier is quite a notable scientist, and for the record, this work is already highlighted at his bio on wikipedia (it seems that this addition was not made by anyone associated with homeopathy). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier#Electromagnetic_signals_from_bacterial_DNA Dana Ullman 16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Dana, we have links. If you want to write anything about Montagnier be bold and edit the article Luc Montagnier.

In the meantime I followed your link and read the Montagnier et al. article. I completely agree with Gareth. The results of Montagnier et al. are very preliminary, their signals are very weak, and obtained with an apparatus invented 15 years ago by Benveniste and not developed any further. They do not have the beginning of an explanation of where their EM waves come from, and most importantly: the authors do not link their work to homeopathy. It is very audacious and (to my taste far fetched), in particular in an encyclopedia, to relate their findings to an explanation of homeopathy—especially at this very early stage of their research. In short, the paragraph about Montagnier's recent work should go.--Paul Wormer 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul, did you know that the article in "Nature" by Benveniste in 1988 also never mentioned homeopathy or homeopathic? And yet, everyone understood that the implications were to homeoapthy. The Benveniste research, like Montagnier's, used water as the dilutant and acknowledged that the effect required vigorous shaking. Both studies also found that certain high temperatures erased the previously observed effect. Please note that what I wrote about this new work did not say that it was a homeopathic study, but like Benveniste's work, it has implications for homeopathy. Dana Ullman 22:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should leave out both the Montagnier work and the bamboo proving. Both subjects could be discussed in adjunct articles when we get there, maybe even the Memory of water article? Right now, the bibliography is probably a good place for it. D. Matt Innis 00:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated re-approval version

Thanks all for the comments and edits. I've made some mostly style edits that better explain the homeopath's premise before the science and medicine comment on their premise. I have updated the re-approval versionD. Matt Innis 15:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)